Shakespeare on Film: Laurence Olivier's "Hamlet"

This is a revised version of a review I posted on another blog in the summer of 2010

Four years after directing and starring in Henry V (1944), Laurence Olivier turned his directorial to what is arguably Shakespeare’s greatest tragedy, Hamlet. As in Henry V, Olivier both directs and stars in the film as the title character. While the character of Henry V presents his own challenges, the character of Hamlet, as well as the play itself, is one of the most challenging for actors and directors. Olivier manages both as an actor and a director, to craft what may be the finest screen adaptation of Hamlet.

It’s certainly one of the most condensed and efficient Hamlets on screen. Even at two and a half hours, the film glides through the action of the play. Gone are the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as well as Fortinbras. The “O what a rogue and peasant slave am I” and “How all occasions do inform against me” soliloquies are also cut. Terrence Rafferty points out in his essay for the Criterion Collection release of Hamlet that criticisms were directed at the elimination of the aforementioned elements. Olivier responded to these criticisms by stating that his film was “a study in Hamlet.” I believe this means Olivier wasn’t concerned with having everything from the play be in the film. He was mostly interested in exploring the basic ideas within the play and the character of Hamlet

Hamlet is at its core a psychological drama.  By being “a study in Hamlet” it by default becomes a study in the character of Hamlet. The study is so intimate that Olivier speaks some of Hamlet’s dialogue in voiceover. The “O that this too too sullied flesh” is delivered mostly in voiceover, with Olivier making a few exclamations. The “To be or not to be” soliloquy is also delivered partly in voiceover. There’s a part of me that wishes Olivier had delivered his first soliloquy without voiceover since it’s the introduction to the character. I would have liked to see a full performance. Still, I cannot deny the effectiveness of the technique. It helps makes the film cinematic and capturing the psychological intimacy for which it strives. I think this technique works best for the scene where Hamlet is about to Kill Claudius. It makes Hamlet would be thinking rather than speaking in this moment. Thankfully Olivier does not overuse the voiceover like Roman Polanski did in his Macbeth, which is not a knock against that film.

Laurence Olivier is a theatrical performer yet he also has control of his performances. Even his Othello started out more restrained before building up into a jealous rage. As Hamlet, Olivier is eloquent and understands that despite Hamlet’s sense of theatricality he is an inward character. The problem with the rest of the cast is that while they are all quite good, I can’t quite remember them as clearly as I would like. For me, the most memorable was Jean Simmons. She makes a wonderful Ophelia, very believable as someone with whom a man could fall in love. I found Terrence Morgan as Laertes a little too formal at first but when he returns near the end of the film I thought it was a better performance, more passionate. Basil Sydney doesn’t try to make Claudius evil. He plays him just as a man. Ironically, the killing of his brother seems less evil than when he tries to kill Hamlet. What I find most impressive about Eileen Herlie’s performance is that she was thirteen years Olivier’s junior yet has the aura of an older woman. She makes a strong choice, probably under Olivier’s direction, to make clear that Gertrude is suspicious of Claudius. It makes the drinking of the cup a stronger final action. If she is suspicious she sacrifices herself to expose Claudius.

Hamlet lends itself well to a cinematic interpretation. With its ghost story elements, a royal castle as its location, sword fighting, and intense psychological drama, a director has quite a bit to experiment with using the visual medium.  As a visual representation of the play, it’s evocative of the chilling ghost story element of the play and of the gloomy, vast yet claustrophobic castle of Denmark. Olivier successfully does give the audience a chill with his depiction of the ghost. In the closet scene, Olivier gives us a point of view shot for the ghost. This shot suggests that the ghost is real in this scene and is a unique way to scare the audience. Olivier moves his camera through the castle smoothly, creating an atmosphere of suspense and, as Rafferty describes, the feeling that the eye of God is watching the events of the play. This interpretation is similar to Akira Kurosawa’s view on his film Ran, which is an adaptation of Shakespeare’s King Lear. 
One shot I like is the “balcony” shot that comes before Hamlet’s first soliloquy. It is both cinematic and echoes how an audience member may view the Olivier if this was on stage. Of course, Olivier does make it cinematic by using a crane shot to come down to the “stage” so to speak, then cutting to a close-up of Hamlet.  Olivier calls attention to how the action would look from a balcony then breaks the illusion by bringing the audience closer with the crane shot and then with the close-up

I also like the echoing shots of Ophelia from behind, looking at Hamlet in the dinner area and the shot of Hamlet from behind, looking at Ophelia as she walks away. In the middle is a medium shot of Ophelia looking at Hamlet, interrupted from behind by her father Polonius. These moments couldn’t quite be captured on stage the way they are on film. Particularly since Hamlet’s first soliloquy is followed by the dialogue between him and Horatio about the ghost, whereas in the film this conversation comes after the first scene with Ophelia.

The black and white photography is quite striking as well. Olivier’s film version of Henry V was what one could call a Technicolor epic. Its colour photography was appropriate for its upbeat tone (It was made in part to support British troops). I don’t think colour photography would have worked for Hamlet at this time, so I’m glad black and white was used.

I think the only part where Olivier goes wrong is the opening narration, in which Olivier says “This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind. I think this misses a larger point about the character. I believe Hamlet knows what he wants to do, which is to avenge his father. The “making up his mind” part comes from not knowing how to do so or even if Claudius is guilty. Also, I think the “O what a rogue and peasant slave am I” soliloquy should have been kept. I just feel there’s something too essential about the soliloquy for it to be taken out. It displays how Hamlet is angry at himself for not acting against his uncle. The soliloquy is also a great lead up to Hamlet’s plan concerning the play.

Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet stands as a terrific example of how to do Shakespeare on screen. Visually and acting wise Oliver makes Shakespeare in to exciting cinema.

The Look on Their Faces: Some Thoughts on "The Prestige"

This is a revised version of a review I posted on another blog in the summer of 2010- Spoilers Follow

I think Christopher Nolan will always be closely associated with the Batman mythology due to Batman Begins, its sequel The Dark Knight, and of course the upcoming The Dark Knight Rises. This isn’t a bad thing; the first two films are two of the finest superhero films of recent memory. Nevertheless, I feel The Prestige, along with Memento and Inception, are the films that I believe epitomize his interests as a director. Nolan likes narratives which work as puzzles, both literally and existentially.  Some dismiss his films as gimmicks and nothing more. I disagree.  Once the films reveal more about themselves, the viewer can find genuine depth, thematically and emotionally. In this review I want to focus on The Prestige.  This was Nolan’s first film since Memento where he was fascinated with creating a puzzle narrative. His previous two films were Insomnia, the remake of the 1997 Norwegian film of the same name, and of course Batman Begins, his biggest and most ambitious film at the time. The Prestige came out the year after Batman Begins. It was a good film to do before embarking on another Batman adventure. In some respects, despite the intelligence and craftsmanship of Batman Begins, Nolan needed to do a film which stood apart from any franchise expectations, to remind audiences who he was as a director.

The Prestige is an elegant and atmospheric film. It puts us into what is both an authentic and yet slightly stylized version of the Victorian era. I had a similar reaction to what critic A.O Scott felt about Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood.  He said the film captured the time period not exactly as it was, but as a heightened version of itself. Nolan and Wally Pfister, his cinematographer since Memento, create a look that immediately draws the audience into this world. You want to look at everything in detail, particularly since the opening line of the film is “Are you watching closely?”

 Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are the two magicians at the heart of the film. They represent the kind of protagonists which inhabit Nolan’s films. They are obsessive in regard to their profession and occupy a morally grey area. Jackman and Bale give very strong performances, creating two unique individuals that are always compelling. The last time I watched the film, I found myself more interested in the secret behind Borden’s identity, which is a twin brother- and his life with Sarah (Rebecca Hall), particularly with Sarah’s knowledge of when Borden actually means that he loves her and when he doesn’t.  The brother who does not mean “I love you” is the brother who eventually falls in love with Olivia (Scarlett Johansson). Sarah’s intuition works as a clue: both plot-wise and emotionally.  On repeat viewings these scenes carry even more emotional weight than they do the first time one views the film.

Borden seems to be the protagonist of the film. Unfortunately, the film seems to decide on this a little too late.  I want to focus on a moment that is simultaneously a little too obvious yet supports Borden is the protagonist. It’s when Olivia gives Angier Borden’s diary. She wants to get it back to Borden’s shop before he knows it’s gone but Angier needs to figure out how he does the transported man. Olivia tells him it won’t bring his wife back, to which Angier responds, “I don’t care about my wife, I care about his secret.” That moment seems a little bit too obvious, almost as if the film was trying too hard to say Angier had become an obsessive. Still, Jackman’s look of regret at his words saves the moment from being too shallow. It supports that Borden is the protagonist. Borden’s love for his daughter and Sarah, and the other brother’s regret for Sarah’s death, contrasted with this moment with Angier, emphasizes the ultimate difference between the two men. By the end of the film Borden can still deeply care for the people in his life, whereas Angier’s obsession with being the better magician trumps his anger towards Borden for possibly killing his wife. Angier’s speech at the end of the film about the look of wonder on people’s faces when an illusion is performed is one of the film’s finest moments because it both humanizes Angier and shows how much he has lost his humanity. The only people in his life who matter are the audience.

Another reason why Borden is the protagonist of the film is that, as some have pointed out, his trick does not cheat, and Angier’s does. Borden’s trick involves using an actual twin, whereas Angier goes outside the normal constrictions of doing illusions by using Tesla’s (David Bowie) machine. Many view the science fiction element of the film as a cheat; yet they may not consider the idea that the audience is supposed to take this a cheat, to see that while Angier is a great showman, Borden is the better illusionist. I also feel that Tesla and his machine are introduced early enough for the audience to have the seed planted that something beyond the realm of traditional Victorian era magic is afoot.  Moreover, if one takes the film too literally as a magic trick, one that has to have a rational explanation, then one misses the larger theme of science as a new form of magic. I also feel the sci-fi element actually goes well with the Victorian era setting; the film can possibly be seen as homage to H.G Wells or Jules Verne.

I think if the film had focused more on the themes of science and the Tesla character then it would have been an even stronger film, one that is clearer about the relation between scientific magic and illusionist magic. As it stands, The Prestige is still an effective mood piece, and on repeated viewings it becomes more than just a fascinating puzzle. It’s themes of obsession in terms of being the greatest magician relate to the issues of how far people go to be famous today. This, coupled with its horrific view of how science can fuel these obsessions, makes The Prestige a very contemporary film.

Some Thoughts on "Overrated"

If James Lipton of Inside The Actor's Studio were to ask me what my least favourite word was, I'm pretty sure I'd say "overrated." Everytime I see or hear the word, it just kills me inside. The fact that it's become such an overused word is what makes me hate it. When a word like "overrated," is overused, it doesn't lose it's meaning but the meaning does lose its power and its relevance. If every movie is "overrated" then what's the big deal? It's the same thing as calling a movie "contrived." SO many movies have been labelled with that word that it doesn't seem to matter if a movie is contrived or not. In fact, I think almost every movie is contrived- but that's a different discussion.

"Overrated" has become so overused that it's even been directed at film which haven't been universally praised. I've seen Hanna, Joe Wright's film about a teenage assassin played by Saorise Ronan, on a few "overrated" lists. This is surprising because while the film got mostly good reviews from critics, it didn't strike me as a film they loved with an intense passion. It had a pretty quiet release in April of last year. And it only started being talked about again at the end of the year when it appeared on some ten best lists, as well as the "overrated" lists.

My favourite film of 2010, Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island, also appeared on an "overrated" list.. Personally, I'd put that on my "underrated" list. I can't see why the film was overrated. While it wasn't a total critcal disaster, with Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper and Peter Travers giving it very positive reviews, Michael Phillips and A.O Scott both thought it didn't work, as did others. It seems that the only reason why Hanna and Shutter Island were labelled overrated was because some people thought that anyone liking either film was "overrating" it. If that is the case, there's a certain arrogance to this logic. If you didn't like a film then you didn't like it. That some people did doesn't make it overrated.

Even when a film does get universal praise I still think it's a little arrogant to say a film is "overrated." It suggests this person knows the truth about the film while others don't. It fails to consider the notion that film viewing is a lot of the time based on an emotional response as much as an intellectual response. I think the reason while many films are "overrated" is because critics or general audiences have a strong emotional reaction. It not's that they can't or don't think. It just means that whether or not the film is the greatest thing since sliced bread, the emotional reaction to the elements that really worked become the focus rather than what didn't work. Not everything about Inception was the most groundbreaking or amazing thing but certain scenes and moments, the shifting gravity fight, slow motion van drop, Paris street folding and the infamous ending, are what stick with the audience afterwards and are what really counts.

This is why "overrated" also strikes me as a somewhat reductive phrase. It almost wants in to reign in any emotional reaction or praise on part of the viewer. Again, every time people start liking a movie, it becomes overrated. Why can't a movie just be well recieved instead of being made in to the bad guy, being told it has no business being liked. The word also suggests a mechanical reaction to film viewing, as if a movie has to be "properly" rated. It's almost impossible to do this because people are going to have wildly different reactions to a film- things they liked, things they disliked. Two people can love a movie for different reasons.

I think my main gripe with the word "overrated" is that it doesn't really say anything about the actual film, it's themes, it's characters, it's actors or direction. It almost falls under "padding the word count." It's not direct or to the point about the film.

It's award season, which means this word is going around a lot, particularly in regards to The Artist. I think this has to do with people seeing the film after hype has been built up. Unfortunately, it's hard for anyone, including me, to go in cold to movies due to the hype, either positive or negative, which sometimes surround them. I sympathize with people who use the word but I hope one day people get bored using it. There's so much more exciting and interesting things to say about a film.

I'll Give You Shelter From The Storm: "Take Shelter"

There's a moment late in to Take Shelter where the character of Curtis says "There's a storm coming." This phrase has been countless times in films and television but by the time it occurs in this film, it's an extremely compelling moment especially since the character has been so bottled up until this point. In fact the whole movie is similar to this moment in that it takes things which may seem like old hat- a family breaking a part, visions of an apocalypse and descent in to mental illness, and finds what makes themes like this so achingly human.

What I admired most about Take Shelter is how despite it dealing with this intensely dramatic idea about a man dreaming abut the end of the world, the film never loses its footing in the real world. Writer/director Jeff Nichols wants us to feel something like this could be happening right now. He achieves this effect by making it ambiguous whether Curtis is actually experiencing premonitions or if he is suffering from mental illness. We learn later in the movie that Curtis' mother suffers from schizophrenia. Either scenario is terrifying. Either there is an apocalypse coming, and everything he loves will be destroyed- or he is just hallucinating these things and he'll still lose everything he loves as he descends further in to madness. For Nichols, and by extension Curtis, mental illness is a kind of apocalypse.

Not only does Nichols instill this ambiguity in us but in Curits as well. He himself does not know if he is going insane or if the world will end. This makes Curtis a more complex character and allows us to be on the same page as him, doubting and then believing. Michael Shannon plays Curtis and he has a great face which is jut fascinating to watch. It's perfect for Curtis because it can suggest madness while still having a self restraint. This communicates Curtis' inner struggle and his attempt to keep this struggle from his wife Samantha and his daughter. Shannon plays this dilemma without words and when he finally has the outburst where he tells his co-workers that a storm is coming, it almost knock you over. Shannon deserved an Ocar nomination for his performance.

Jessica Chastain, who appeared in several films in 2011 gives an equally subltle and moving performance as Samantha. As in The Tree of Life, inhabits the kind of mother and wife we all want. Her and Shannon create a husband and wife relationship which feels really lived in. Her plea to her husband near the end of the film to open the shelter door, that "this is what it means to stay with us," brings the movie to its emotional climax soley with her voice.

I like the idea of Curtis and Samantha having a deaf daughter. It adds texture to their relationship and pays off right at the end of the film.

While Nichols' visual style is understated, it's very purposeful in the way he frames actors and holds shots for a certain amount of time. I liked how he visualized the dreams as if they real, then slowly making us realize we were in a dream.

For me, Take Shelter, while it was about the broad notion of a apocalypse, was partly about  post 9/11 paranoia. How do I protect my family against something which can come at any moment?

When Curtis and his family go in to the storm shelter near the end of the film, it was hard for me not to think of films like Hitchcock's The Birds or M. Night Shaymalan's Signs. I wish more of the film was spent down there. I have a mixed reaction to the ending. I'm not sure if takes away some of the ambiguity of the film or adds more layers to the film.
Either way, Take Shelter  is an immensely affecting film and one of the finest films of 2011.

Some Thoughts on The Oscar Nominations

On Monday night I posted some half-hearted predictions for the Oscar nominations. I rightly predicted Gary Oldman for Best Actor but missed out on Terrence Malick and The Tree of Life. I was hoping he and the film would be nominated and I felt he had a chance. Ultimately I put in David Fincher instead of him where I should have just gone for Malick. Here's a rundown of what I thought:

Some (quasi) surprises
While I knew who Demian Bechir was I didn't think he would make it in to Best Actor ahead of Leonardo DiCaprio or Michael Fassbender. Looking back at it, Bechir's SAG nomination was a strong indicator of his support from his fellow actors, which take up a large chunk of the Academy.

I almost put in Rooney Mara ahead of Glenn Close but I felt Close pretty much had a nomination locked. Mara ultimately knocked off Tilda Swinton. I think Mara can be considered the ingenue (I hate that word) nominee for the year, in the fashion of Jennifer Lawrence or Ellen Page.

Bigger Surprises
I thought Albert Brooks was a lock for his performance in Drive but he became this year's Andrew Garfield for me. Brooks lost out on a SAG nomination, which I guess was a foreshadowing of things to come.

While I thought Max von Sydow would have a decent shot at getting in for Best Supporting Actor, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close didn't seem to have enough steam to become a major player. Despite it's poor reviews, it scored a Best Picture nomination but broke director Stephen Daldry's nomination streak, being nominated for his last three films.

What I'm Happy About
While I haven't seen Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, It's really great to see Gary Oldman score his first Best Actor nomination.

I'm happy to see Terrence Malick recognized for his unique and personal The Tree of Life. Whether you love it or hate it, it provoked a reaction in people and will probably be the film that most people go back and watch, and talk about, long after this year's ceremony is over.

I really liked Bridesmaids and, while early on,  a nomination for Melissa McCarthy didn't seem like it would happen, she had enough support to make it in to Best Supporting Actress. McCarthy is really funny and human in the film and while she probably won't win, this gives more of a boost to McCarthy's career.

Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris is a very charming and poignant film, one Allen's most enjoyable of his recent films. While he probably won't attend the ceremony, it's nice to see him represented.

What I'm Sad About
While I knew it wouldn't happen, it's unfortunate that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance in 50/50 never truly caught on. Even Will Reiser's autobiographical script didn't make the cut

While I've enjoyed some of  Leonardo DiCaprio's performances more than his work in J. Edgar, I would have like to have seen him in Best Actor.

Not only was Albert Brooks ignored for Drive, so was Ryan Gosling for his subtle but affecting performance as the man only known as Driver. Heck, he was ignored for Crazy Stupid Love. and The Ides of March as well.

Who I Think Will Win
If Michel Hazanavicious wins the DGA then I think he'll probably win the Oscar since history shows that whoever wins that award goes on to win Best Director- and if he wins the Oscar The Artist will probably win Best Picture. I can't see Hazanavicious just winning Best Director, particularly ahead of some of these other guys. I could see Martin Scorsese winning Best Director and Best Picture going to The Artist.

George Clooney seems to be the front runner for his fine work in The Descendants but could Gary Oldman take it? If it was any other year, it'd probably be his. Same goes for Brad Pitt in what could be considered a career best performance in Moneyball. If it wasn't for Clooney, I think Pitt would win. Between Clooney and Pitt, I'd probably vote for Pitt.

It seems to be a race between Meryl Streep and Viola Davis. I haven't seen either performance yet but something tells me I'd vote for Davis. If Streep wins the SAG award, I think the Oscar will go to her.

I think Christopher Plummer will win the Oscar. In another year it could be Nick Nolte or Max von Sydow.

Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastain, both nominated for The Help, could split the vote. This would open the door for the three other nominees. If Glenn Close isn't going to win for Albert Nobbs then I can't see Janet McTeer winning. Melissa McCarthy could go all the way. If there's enough love for The Artist then Berenice Bejo would get support. Still, Spencer seems to be the frontrunner and I think she'll probably win.

Only a month until the big show!

Final Ocar Predictions

Best Picture
The Artist
Midnight in Paris
The Help
The Descendants
Hugo
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
War Horse
Moneyball

Best Director
Woody Allen- Midnight in Paris
David Fincher- The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Michel Hazanavicius- The Artist
Alexander Payne- The Descendants
Martin Scorsese- Hugo

Best Actor
George Clooney- The Descendants
Leonardo DiCaprio- J. Edgar
Jean DuJardin- The Artist
Brad Pitt- Moneyball
Gary Oldman- Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Best Actress
Glenn Close- Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis- The Help
Meryl Streep- The Iron Lady
Tilda Swinton- We Need to Talk About Kevin
Michelle Williams- My Week With Marilyn

Best Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh- My Week With Marilyn
Albert Brooks- Drive
Jonah Hill- Moneyball
Nick Nolte- Warrior
Christopher Plummer- Beginners

Best Supporting Actor
Berenice Bejo- The Artist
Jessica Chastain- The Help
Melissa McCarthy- Bridesmaids
Octavia Spencer- The Help
Shailene Woodley- The Descendants

Best Original Screenplay
Woody Allen- Midnight in Paris
Michel Hazanavicius- The Artist
Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig- Bridesmaids
Tom McCarthy- Win Win
Will Reiser- 50/50

Best Adapted Screenplay
John Logan- Hugo
Alexander Payne- The Descendants
Tate Taylor- The Help
Srephen Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin- Moneyball
Stephen Zaillian- The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Midnight Madness: "Midnight in Paris"

Warning: Spoilers Below

Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris is a slyly funny and charmy, as well as almost achingly poignant and nostalgic film. It's this combination that makes the film, despite its small scale, quite meaningful.

The film opens, appropriately, with images of Paris. As the images go by, the day progresses, until we reach...midnight. This opening will no doubt remind Allen fans of his 1979 film Manhattan, which opened with gorgeous black and white images of New York City. The difference between the two openings is that while Manhattan's opening was almost overwhelming and romanticized, Midnight in Paris's opening is rather low key. The images, in colour, as the rest of the film, are romantic but don't seem romanticized. This is a nice contrast with what our main character, Gil Pender thinks of the city in the opening lines of the film, in conversation with his fiance Inez (Rachel McAdams): 

Gil: This is unbelievable! Look at this! There's no city like this in the world. There never was.
Inez: You act like you've never been here before.
Gil: I don't get here often enough, that's the problem. Can you picture how drop dead gorgeous this city is in the rain? Imagine this town in the '20s. Paris in the '20s, in the rain. The artists and writers!
Inez: Why does every city have to be in the rain? What's wonderful about getting wet?

From the very first lines, Gil is established as a romantic. While the opening images may not be romanticized, and we may be exhausted by the end of the opening montage, but Gil sees these images through a romantic's lens. Gil is a successful Hollywood screenwriter but Gil sees himself as a hack. While on vacation in Paris with Iznez and her parents, Gil wants to write a novel, which may have less to do with actual ambitions, than the romantic notion of being a writer in Paris.

Gil finally gets to live the romantic's dream when one night while walking through the city he is transported back in time to 1920s Paris. There he meets F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddelston) and his wife Zelda (Alison Pill), as well as Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll). Stoll is subtly hilarious as Hemingway. While I haven't listened to a lot of recordings of Hemingway speaking,  I believe Stoll modelled his speech pattern for this film as the real Hemingway. There's a scene, during the second night Gil goes back in time, where a cab pulls up and Gil opens the door. We don't see who's in it but hear Gil say "Hello Mr. Hemingway." We then cut to a close up of Hemingway talking about war. After a while we cut to Gil's reaction and question. Another director or writer would have shown Hemingway earlier in this scene and would have inserted more reaction shots from Gil. By shooting it this way, Allen gives the scene a slightly off balance and humourous feel. As Hemingway keeps talking you're reminded of  Hemingway's sparse sentences and think to yourself, "Oh my God, did he really talk like that?

Gil goes back in time each night, getting advice on his novel, and escaping the annoyance of Inez's gushing over her old friend Paul (Michael Sheen), who is a classic Woody Allen type, the psuedo-intellectual. Sheen does a good job of not overplaying the part. He captures exactly what you'd expect from a guy who's probably smart but over compensates. While I've liked Wilson before I've never been as taken by him as I have here. Wilson does a fine job of blending the laid back nature we associate with his performances with a certain Woodyness that's not an imitation of Allen but rather a channeling of his spirit (I believe Allen has said he would have played the part in the seventies). 

While one of Rachel McAdams' most notable roles is that of Regina George in Mean Girls, we usually associate sweetness with her as an actress. I think it took me a while on first viewing for it to register that her Inez is kind of a...well...you know. Like Sheen, McAdams does a good job of not overplaying her role and while Inez could have been developed more (you feel her and Paul don't get proper payoffs), the point of the film is that there is always a disconnect between her and Gil. Whoever Inez truly is as a person,when she's with Gil, any positive qualities have a hard time coming out.

All the actors in the 1920s sequences are having a lot of fun, particularly Stoll as well as Adrien Brody, playing the surrealist painter Salvadore Dali. I would have liked to have spent more time with these characters. There are a lot of comedic possibilities which Allen could have explored. While it also would have been nice to further develop some of these characters, they're such vivid personalities that you don't seem to mind.

What I really admire about the film, is that the film is less about the famous icons of the period then it is about Gil's relationship with a French woman named Adriana (Marion Cotillard). Cotillard is wonderful here, seductive yet vulnerable, filled with a yearning, like Gil, for a earlier time. This relationship growns the film and ultimately leads to what Allen is getting at in this film, which is nostalgia, can blind someone to their life in the present, particularly when its nostalgia for a different time period. When Gil and Adriana go back in time even further to the 1890s, Adriana wants to stay. Gil realizes that everyone, no matter what time period they live in, has their "golden age." Adriana wants to live in the 1920s, the people from Paris in the 1890s want to live in the Renaissance. Allen seems to be saying that we're the only ones who can appreciate the period in which we live, whereas people looking back at that period always view it through a romantic lens. While the world may never be perfect, we have to make the time we have, and the time we in live in, a golden age, because an actual golden age can never truly exist. It's a slightly sad but wise message.

 It'd be easy to label Allen as being hypocritical with this message due to how the film's 1920s sequences are romantic.  I don't think that's the case. I feel Allen is very sympathetic to Gil's romantic yearnings since Gil seems to be based, in some respects, off of Allen. Also, Allen doesn't demonize nostalgia but acknowledges it as part of human nature. He even gives Paul a line of dialouge where he describes the notion of "Golden Age Thinking," which people like Gil experience. Gil gets the rare chance to experience the time period he loves. It's through this experience that Gil is able to move on. The end of the film suggests new beginnings for everyone. I don't think Gil is no longer a romantic by the end of the film and I don't think Allen expects him to. It's going to be a process for Gil.  But it'll be okay. In one way or another, he'll always have Paris.

P.S. I still haven't seen Allen's The Purple Rose of Cairo, which also deals with similar themes. I need to get on that!